30/05/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

With the election not much more than a week away,

the contest for who will get to Number 10 is is getting serious.

After a tricky time following the U-turn on her manifesto,

Theresa May is trying to refocus minds on who is best placed

Jeremy Corbyn won praise for staying clam under hostile

But it seems he hadn't done his homework

Nicola Sturgeon has been launching the SNP manifesto this morning.

They're promising a big increase in public spending,

a rise in income tax and a new immigration policy for Scotland.

And we'll be talking about the newest addition

I don't mean to be rude. You seem to be a bit of a glumbucket. Are you

enjoying the campaign? And with us for the whole of the

programme today, it's the former cabinet minister and now Times

columnist Michael Gove. He's hoping to be elected

again as an MP next week. He was the Justice Secretary

until he ran against Theresa May for the leadership of

the Conservative Party. But he says she showed very good

judgement by giving him the sack - and the highlight on TV

wasn't a Bond film. If you're a political obsessive

like us, it was the first big live television appearance by Theresa May

and Jeremy Corbyn but appearing one after the other

on Sky News and Channel 4. I want to live in a world

that is free of the danger We are increasing the funding

into the health service, and will increase funding

into the health That's why we've pledged to provide

10,000 more police on our streets, and we want a foreign policy that

didn't leave large areas I think what is important now

is that we ensure that we get Free movement is implicit

in membership of the European Union. It obviously stops when we leave

the European Union. The Labour Party's manifesto,

we know the figures don't add up. What is important

is that as we look... Benefits will be uprated,

and be uprated, of course. What we are doing is putting forward

a proposal that means people don't have to sell their house

in their lifetime to pay for care. It means they can pass on savings

to their children and it means There is nothing in this manifesto

about getting rid of the monarchy, which is another thing you believe

in, isn't it? Look, there's nothing in there

because we're not going to do it. Well, we're joined now by the Shadow

International Development minister, Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

Thank you. Before I come to you, I want to start with Michael Gove. Do

you accept that the hubries of calling a snap election which

Theresa May said she wouldn't do repeatedly, meanted you had to draw

up a manifesto very quickly and now you're suffering to are it? No. Why

not? The reason for calling the election was perfectly clear as the

Prime Minister pointed out. 9 Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and

Scottish National Party said they would recognise our progress to

securing a proper Brexit and we needed to have an election in order

to strengthen Theresa's hands. We are seeing that across the country.

People recognising in 11 days' time, after the general election, we'll

send someone to Brussels to see out our departure from the EU. Jeremy

Corbyn and the Prime Minister are convinced Theresa May's the right

person to be in those negotiations. What evidence is there for that? If

you look at the polls, they've gone from a 24 point lead for Theresa May

to anything between a 5 and 14 point lead. Most of the questions last

night were on domestic Poking Si. A social care cap. A massive you turn

by Theresa May. Is she suffering from wanting a bigger majority for

Brexit and actually writing a manifesto that's crashed and burned

in terms of social care and pensioners missing out on the winter

care allowance? There are so many questions in there. Try answering

some of them. I will. The first thing is hub rice. We all see when

the election results are recorded whether it is the rights decision to

make. I think it is. We'll see Teresa returned with an increased

majority. How big do you think the majority needs to be. If she gets a

few more seats, will it be worth it? I'm not a commentator. You have a

judgment. My judgment is Teresa will emerge strengthened as she has from

this debate process. You ask about the manifesto. There's a stark

contrast from our deep manifesto. When you say deep. On costing, there

wasn't a cap on social care. Now there S you'll take away the

universal benefit on pensioners in terms of winter fuel allowance.

What's detailed about that? We've had more detail in our manifesto

than Labour has. What's de-day-old about the figures? What is detailed

is we've far more detail on how to fund social care than any Government

hitherto. On the winter fuel allowance and double lock, we've a

far greater degree of detail about how pensioners will benefit. Which

pensioners will lose the winter allowance. Wealthy ones. Cat

guerreised by? Is there a figure? I'm responding on the basis you

have' a pre-conceived notion. You've bout into a... That won't get you

away from putting a figure. Pensioners will be worried about it.

Of course they are worried about it. There has been a deliberate attempt

by Labour in order to terrify pensioners. In fact, as Teresa's

clarified, pensioners will have the reassurance of knowing there will be

a cap on the amount that's paid. When it comes to getting the numbers

right, Barry Gardiner, your party, it seems, has not learnt lessons

following the fiasco of the police numbers. An another key policy

announcement by Labour today on childcare and your leader Jeremy

Corbyn didn't know how much it would cost. Let's take a listen.

How much will it cost to provide un-means tested childcare for 1.3

It will obviously cost a lot to do so, we accept that.

The point I'm trying to make is we are making it

universal so that we are in a position to make sure that every

At the moment, get free places will continue to get them.

Those that have to pay won't and we'll collect

the money through taxation, mainly through corporate taxation.

I'll give you the figure in a moment...

You're logging into your iPad here, you've announced a major

policy and you don't know how much it will cost?

Can I give you the exact figure in a moment?

Isn't this exactly the issue with people and

the Labour Party - which came up under Gordon Brown - that we cannot

All of our manifesto is fully costed and examined.

But you're holding your manifesto, you're flicking

through it, you've got an iPad there, you had

a phone call while you were

in here, and you don't know how much it is going to cost?

Can we come back to that in a moment?

This is a policy you're launching today, Mr

Corbyn, and you don't know how much it is going to cost.

How much will it cost? ?4.8 billion for the childcare. .5 billion for

the restoration of over 1,000 Sure Start centres the Government have

closed down. In terms of capital to increase the available childcare

spaces, it will cost ?2.7 billion. The point I make is this. It wasn't

the figure wasn't there or hadn't been costed. This is a rapid-fire

general election campaign in which people, politicians are under

spotlight. Do you know the answer to this? Do you know the answer to

this. If I asked Michael, what was it you spent on early years

education in the last year as your administration of Secretary of

State, do you know the figure? No. ?2.9 billion. What was it you spent

on five-16 on education? Year by year? Year by year. By the time of

the end of process, it was about ?40 billion. You've made your point. The

point for the taxpayer is they want to be reassured that certainly their

party leaders and front bench spokes people do know how much it will

cost. Otherwise... Joe the point is Labour want to sampling on spending

but don't care how much it will cost? We do know. That's why we've

produced this document. Jeremy Corbyn didn't. We are uniquely as a

party, having produce add document, funding Britain's future, that sets

out clearly what those costs are. Which the Conservatives don't have.

It is about as reliable as a pension document? When in fact you asked

whether he knew... Hang on. Go on. When you asked Michael, whether he

knew how much or how many pensioners would lose out the winter fuel

allowance, he didn't give you any answer. There are two answers out

there from respectable organisations. One says it might be

as many as ten million and the other six million. Michael didn't want to

give that figure. They haven't been stated. Don't talk over each other.

Let's talk about other figures. Your leader does not know what a flagship

policy costs. I'm sorry, he does. He couldn't remember it in an instant.

Is that acceptable in the middle of an election campaign? It is not just

the childcare policy. You have this document Funding Britain's Future.

In that debate, he was asked about benefits being uprated or frozen. In

your manifesto, which I have here and the detail about benefits, it

doesn't say you'll uprate all benefits which is what Jeremy Corbyn

said in last night's debate. The reason is because the uprated

benefit is costed in the Government red book. That's why it doesn't need

to be costed here. Will it be frozen. For people on benefits, this

is important. Is Labour going to continue with a four-year freeze on

all benefits, which is what the Government's doing. Again a figure

not in their manifesto. It could cost ?11 billion to people on

benefits. Are you going to uprate them or freeze them? Jeremy's been

clear they will be uprated every year. Job-seekers allow anxious

and... He did not say all benefits. He said uprating benefits. That does

not mean all benefits. Which ones? You made the point. I'm asking the

questions here. I know, this is a good question. Which one? Michael

also made the point you said people should know when they're launch can

a policy. You will remember earlier in this campaign, Michael Hammond,

Philip Hammond. Philip Hammond, when he was asked the cost of HS2 said it

was ?32 billion. It is ?57.5 billion. The my point is these are

the nit-picking things... They're important though, Barry Gardiner. It

is important to know which benefits will be uprated? I've set out

clearly what the benefits for childcare are. Where that money's

coming from. We've costed it. What other benefits will be uprated? Are

you going to uprate universal credit? All aspects of it, which you

could say you got from Jeremy Corbyn's statement? What we said is

there is is a ?10 billion, as yet unallocated, it will be ?2 billion a

year over the lifetime of the Parliament, which will be done after

we've reviewed the benefits and looked at the way in which we can

uprate them using that ?2 billion. That's exactly what we said. It is

in the manifesto. It isn't clear in terms of what you'll uprate and not.

Noes physically which but we are conducting a review. If you remember

last night, Jo, when she was pressed, Theresa May retreated time

and time again into, well, we're going to do a review in that. We're

going to review that. We were upfront. We said we've allocated the

money, ?10 billion. Let's put that to Michael Gove. That's the

difference. Green papers, white papers, looking ahead to

consultation, there is nothing specific about the big issues in the

Tory manifesto. When you say people will want to know, they will what

the cap is on social care. Yes, there was. 82 pages of detail. I'm

asking about your social care cap. What is the cap going to be? What

should it be? There wasn't going to be one. There will be a cap. The

Prime Minister... We don't know what it will be? No, we don't. Damian

Green said there would be no U-turn or cap. She had to come out. She

realised it was unpopular. I think there have been more unpopular

manifesto policies, including Labour's defence and... Can you

answer the question on social care cap. The specific question springs

from how we'll fund our commitments. You've Jeremy Corbyn who has zero

credibility and Theresa May who's been in Government... And have

failed on every single policy they've set in 2010. They said they

would end the deficit and they didn't. I can see the twinkle in

your eye and smile on our face. In defiance of the facts. Barry and

Michael. You may be a knock about duo here. You mustn't talk over each

other. The viewers can't hear. Stay with us.

Now, the Daily Politics moodbox is on tour during the election

campaign, and today Ellie's in Luton where she's been asking

what people think about the big question of security.

I am in Stockwood Park in Luton, to be precise. The election campaign

was postponed last week following the tragic events in Manchester and

when it got underway, the parties were talking about that big issue of

security. Specifically, the Conservatives promised a commission

on tackling extremism. The Labour Party promised 10,000 new police

officers and the Conservatives spent the weekend attacking Jeremy Corbyn

on his links to the IRA during the troubles. Luton is home to two

relatively safe Labour seats but it is the kind of place the Tories have

their eyes on if they are to pull off that big landslide. It is a good

place to ask the question on who you trust more on the question of

national security, Labour or the Conservatives... ?

They are not about taking them out, but making sure everyone is equal so

I choose Labour. Jeremy Corbyn is more trustworthy. Not just that, but

even if you did not know he was a politician he seems like a genuine,

trustworthy possum. Who makes you feel safer, Labour or the

Conservatives. Neither. Why not? I don't feel safe at all. When it

comes to the idea of national security, I would rather trust the

people who have been taking care of it for previous wiles. Rather than

throwing my lot in with a new party. I think fate will decide it... It

won't be fate but the voters! The red rose, the flower. I really like

it. That is why I like Labour. Nothing to do with national

security? I am about peace and love, and unity and care. It is very

difficult on security because of the Trident thing with Jeremy Corbyn.

But I don't trust the Conservatives on anything at the moment. Thank

you. The Conservatives. Why? Jeremy Corbyn said he would not press the

nuclear button. He is an idiot. Labour. The Conservatives... No! I

mean Labour! I said the Conservatives by accident! I agree

with Theresa May but I would rather vote for Corbyn. I like the way that

Corbyn said that the reason why we have got all of these problems in

our own country is because of the fact that we messed around in other

people's countries. Instead of giving these people bread, and a

form of security of being nice to these people, we've blown up their

own children. Labour or the Conservatives? National security...

She is sure! She is striding! We have run out of red balls. Luton has

been Labour since 1997 and it looks like the town trusts the party more

than the Conservatives on the issue of national security. Thank you,

Luton. So that was our entirely

unscientific moodbox. But what can the rather more

scientific opinion polls tell us Well, we're joined now by

the pollster Joe Twyman from YouGov. What is the latest in terms of

people's views on security? The latest data coming after the events

in Manchester show that around four in ten people trust the

Conservatives on defence and security, and around two in ten

trust Labour. It's a margin of two to one in favour of the

Conservatives, and even in Labour voters, only half trust them to make

the right decisions. When you look at individual personalities

involved, half of people trust Theresa May and a third trust Jeremy

Corbyn. About a quarter Amber Rudd and fewer than one in ten four Diane

Abbott. A range of views, no one party completely dominates but the

Conservatives are definitely in the best position. What is driving those

views and opinions in terms of the party they are backing? In a lot of

cases, in terms of who they are backing on security, and a lot of it

is to do with a historical information and the kinds of

narrative is the party has been putting out. Not only during the

campaign but for some time now. Over the period immediately after the

attacks at Westminster but also after the murder of Lee Rigby and

the 7/7 bombings, we did not see much movement in voting intention

figures then, but what we've heard time and again from the

Conservatives in this campaign is that they, are to bore everyone with

this line, strong and stable not only with the economy but when it

comes to security. Divisions in Labour over things like Trident have

not helped to counter that with their own stories. What about

polling in general? Polling in general, we know that the

Conservatives are pushing very hard on the idea of Theresa May as the

person who should take the government forward. Polling on that

remains pretty consistent, about half of people say that she would

make the best Prime Minister, whereas between one in five and one

in four people say Jeremy Corbyn. His ratings have improved and that

gap has closed but not as much as the gap between the Conservatives

and Labour in the dual voting intention poll which was mentioned

at the start of the programme, with a 24 point lead when we started,

since the events in Manchester, that lead was 5% in our poll from The

Times on Friday, and 7% in The Sunday Times on Sunday.

It is growing. Now, we return to normal proceedings, and the question

is, will that bump that the Conservatives enjoyed this far, will

that continue or allow change? As attention moves back to the economy,

childcare, social care and other issues between now and election day.

Joe Twyman, thank you. Michael Gove, let's return to that

issue of security. Theresa May has been running the Home Office since

2010, has she taken tough enough measures to tackle Islamic

extremism? Yes. What could be done to strengthen the government's hand

against extremism? As the Prime Minister made clear in the context

of the manifesto, launching a commission to see how we can prevent

extremism seems to be the next logical step... Really? Isn't that

tinkering around the edges? No, I think it is an enhancement. She has

been responsible for deporting more hate preachers than any other Home

Secretary and put in place the counter extremism strategy which

recognises you don't just seek to prevent violent extremism but

intervene earlier to deal with extremism. She has been clear that

when it comes to the different manifestations of extremist

activity, we need a security apparatus ready to keep us safe and

in contrast to Jeremy Corbyn who regards organisations like Hezbollah

as his friends. You say they have been the right measures and she has

deported a number of hate preachers, I do not know the exact number but

the government says there are 23,000 terrorist attack is potentially in

the country, several thousand being monitored in separate operations,

they are very large numbers. They are concerning, the number

23,000, we need to be careful. It is people who have sympathy with the

ideology rather than those directly engaging in a plot. Could they be

radicalised? Each of these figures, they are figures which are

reflective of individuals and have already been on a radical journey.

The difference between the approach we take and the approaching the last

Labour government is we seek to intervene before people reach the

point where they are ready to press the button on a bomb or pull a

knife. We need to be ready to do the work at mosque and street level to

counter extremism that wasn't being done in the same way by Labour. The

problem is if Jeremy Corbyn has not backed any key pieces of

legislation, when I interviewed your colleague Richard burden than a

couple of days ago, you said it is compensated, you need to look at

separate legislation. But there are key parts of the 2000 piece of

legislation, the power to prescribe organisations and ban them. Jeremy

Corbyn did not backed up. If you take Michael Gove's point that you

need to intervene earlier, Corbyn was against all of those? What

Jeremy has always been in favour of is making sure that we do not allow

the terrorists to dictate the agenda. How do you do that? That

means not letting them undermine the freedom and the right that we have

in this country, the rights for proper judicial scrutiny when you

are being detained. We have heard recently even Tarik before coming

out and talking about internment, and appalling suggestion. All former

heads of MI5 had been very clear about this. You have not answered my

question about why it hasn't been backed by Jeremy Corbyn four pieces

of legislation previously? I have explained, he wants to make sure

terrorists do not set the agenda. The whole threat to this country has

changed from the battlefields of the Middle East to the bedrooms of

disaffected youths in this country. That is why the Prevent strategy,

even David Andersen, who is the previous independent reviewer of our

terror legislation has said that the Prevent strategy causes problems.

Let Michael say... Jeremy Corbyn lead a minute's silence for the IRA

in the 1980s. And calls Hezbollah his friends. The idea that Jeremy

Corbyn is a credible... Shouting does not make your point any better.

I am not shouting. I am making clear how outrageous it is, Barry, that

you are defending as your leader is someone who led a minute of silence

for Republican members... Shouting will not help you, Michael. Answer

the question, why can't you? Does it undermine his credibility? I am

happy to answer Michael's question but let's do it in a calm and

reasoned way. OK? The point is, all that we had seen is in this election

about security and has been trying to focus on smears, newspaper

articles from 33 years ago. Let's focus on the policies. Let's focus

on what now needs to happen to create a safer country. What

policies would you enact? That is what I want to enact... Would you

lead a minute of silence for terrorists? He is dodging the

question. I am not dodging the question, give me a minute to come

back without rudely interrupting, then I will be able to fully answer

what the policies are that we are putting in place. That is why we are

going to put an extra 10,000 police officers on the streets, that the

present Prime Minister, as Home Secretary, cut by 20,000. She was

the one, the moment she came into office in 2010, cut 5% of MI5, 5% of

security and intelligence services, 5% of GCHQ staff. We have only begun

to get back to the numbers of stopping that Bose security

organisations had in the last financial year... That is a policy

you want to increase the number of police officers. Can I say more as

well? In a moment, do you admit cutting those police officers was a

mistake? Don't shout at Barry Gardiner for a moment but answer my

question. Cutting police officers and the number of soldiers in the

Army who had to go out onto the streets of the country after the

Manchester attacks, you cannot fight terror on the cheap? I never

shouted, I ask tough questions that Barry dodged... Go on, answer my

question. I do not think it was, I think it was striking that John

McDonnell when he became Shadow Chancellor wanted to get rid of

special Branch and get rid of MI5. John McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn

have been the terrorists friends, and not their enemies, over the

course of their political careers. That is why Barry cannot answer the

question. He led a minute of silence for Republican... Michael, we are

going to run out of time. Answer the questions about previous

associations that have been repeatedly pity you and your

colleagues and Jeremy Corbyn. The point is this. Jeremy answered those

questions fully last night. He said, on the television last night in

those debates, he said the minute of silence that he participated in was

for all of the people who died... That was counted, of course. We have

had nothing but smears from history. Let's talk about policies going

forward. We are saying that when this government has seen a rise in

illegal border.. People coming in over the border illegally rise from

1000 a month to 13,000 a month, that is why we are putting in place 500

further border guards. We think it is ridiculous that you have two

police the whole of the 11,000 coastline of the UK... We have

policies that we want to put in place that will make us more secure.

When you look at the way in which our prisons... Barry, I will need to

share issue and Michael Gove, that is it.

The partisan supporters are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at

this campaign. Adam, can you tell us more? My goodness, what is he

playing? Sorry, Jo. I am playing Corbyn Run, Theresa May is dropping

bags of money on his head. I'm doing quite well but the music is

incredibly annoying. Talking of Jeremy Corbyn, he has a new

celebrity backer. I will give you a clue. An actor from the US, and he

starred in big things like the best Batman film comedy sitcom Taxi and

Twins with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Who could it be? Take a look...

It's diminutiv actor Danny de Vito who displayed his Corbynito

The baked goods were the star as Liberal Democrat Leader Tim

Farron visited a bakery to make some croissants.

Food was consumed over on the Victoria Derbyshire programme

where they set up Boris Johnson's sister on a blind date

Could you make her unsee the light?

Do you know what, I'm not going to answer that!

Good grief, quick, time for a musical interlude.

Conservative friends of India have released this little ditty.

For those who aren't connoisseurs of Hindi pop, they're saying,

"Let's join hands with Theresa May for a strong and stable Government."

In the category marked "slightly less flattering".

This anti-Tory track is currently number two in the UK iTunes chart.

I wonder what it looks like if we mash it up with some footage we

found of Labour's Yvette Cooper teaching people to line dance?

# We all know politicians like to telling lies

# Big ones, little ones, porky pies

# Saying they're strong and stable...#

Wait for it, a giant question mark to highlight

the lack of decent props, I mean, the lack of debate

about environmental issues in the election campaign!

The SNP launched their manifesto earlier this morning in Perth.

It was delayed from last week, after the Manchester bombing.

this is their programme for government in Westminster.

They want to invest an additional ?118 billion in public services,

which they say would put an end to Westminster austerity cuts.

They say they would fund their spending plans

by delaying reducing the deficit and increasing tax revenues by raising

They also want to protect the triple lock on pensions,

stop cuts to the winter fuel allowance,

deliver extra investment for the NHS, social security

There is also a commitment to increase the minimum wage

to the same level as the "real living wage" over

At present, those aged 25 and over are entitled to ?7.50 per hour.

But the real living wage, currently set at ?8.45,

is projected to rise to ?10.60 per hour by 2022.

The SNP would also like the ability to set it's own immigration policy,

which they say would give people the opportunity to come and go.

to stay in the European Single Market after Brexit.

On independence, they say Scotland should have a referendum at the end

of the Brexit process. They previously said at the end of the

next year or early 2019. Here's Nicola Sturgeon speaking this

morning at her manifesto launch. This manifesto sets out a clear

plan to end Tory cuts, protect Scottish jobs,

and strengthen Scotland's hand. It is a manifesto with

fairness, opportunity A manifesto for a country that is

welcoming and outward looking. A manifesto that reflects our belief

in the infinite possibilities open to the people of Scotland if we work

together in the common good, to build the kind

of country we know we can be. I'm joined now by the deputy leader

of the SNP Angus Robertson, Angus, welcome to the programme. I

hope you can hear me all right. Hi, Jo, I can. I may have to hold my ear

piece. I can make you out. What's changed on independence? Why no

referendum now till after Brexit. You had wanted next year or early

2019? Nothing's changed. We've said we are in favour of the people

having a choice about their future when we have clarity, the outcome of

the Brexit negotiations. Its sometimes lost in the debate at the

end of the negotiation, there is supposed to be a period for the

approval or rejection of that deal. Because, of course, all 27 other EU

member states will have a say in our future as well as the European

Parliament. In those circumstances, we feel that is the appropriate

time, when it is right for everyone else to have a consideration in our

future, we think we should have that right as well rather than having

others making decisions on our behalf. Isn't it a massive climb

down to change the timing for that second referendum. In Nicola

Sturgeon's speech there was barely any mention of it. It seems to have

disappeared at all. Is that because the dial in terms of support for

independence isn't moving in your favour? No, whoever was briefing you

on that subject clearly doesn't know their subject material. There's been

no change to our proposals. We've taken the view now is not the time.

The Prime Minister and nicks had a sturgeon are at one on that issue.

It is important people understand what the outcome of the Brexit

negotiations are likely to be. Increasingly, people are right to

fear regardless of whether they voted Leave or Remain, we're heading

for the most damaging form of Brexit. In those circumstances, it

would be right, we've had an election on that in Scotland, where

the party had a manifesto commitment to holding a referendum on the

outcome after Brexit negotiations, we won the election about being

taken outs of the EU. You'll invest another ?118 billion for extra

services. Where will you get the money from? It is ?128 billion. It

is a mixture of ?118 billion by reprofiling the way the UK using its

overdraft. Rather that cutting as deeply as the UK Government is

proposing to do, it is extending that. It includes those on the

highest incomes in the UK seeing taxes go up from 45p to 50p. It

would allow a UK Government and the SNP, this was outlined today, we are

in favour of spending on health in England rising to match that in

Scotland. We think that would be the best thing for the UK as a whole. It

is a fully costed manifesto. Sure, how is it going to come about? How

are you going to introduce a 50p rate for high earners across the UK?

If there's a majority in the UK Parliament to be South, that is what

we will pursue. You're right... You're not a UK-wide party? No. I

think you're suggesting given the Tories are likely to win the

election, we will be unable to see that voted for in the House of

Commons. What we are outlining is what we will support in the House of

Commons if there were a majority to be found, we'd work with other

like-minded parties to deliver changes like that. Why not do it for

Holyrood? You've had an opportunity to increase income tax. You've never

taken the opportunity to put a 50p rate on? On the issue of having a

difference higher tax rate, there is a risk of losing higher taxpayers to

the rest of the UK. You could lead the way. If there's a UK-wide

pressures, we're standing in a Westminster election and you're

asking us about our Westminster manifesto for a Westminster

election. You've never Sloane any enthusiasm for increasing income tax

to actually get more money. You always blame Westminster. Now you're

proposing a UK-wide increase of a 50p rate for high earners when you

are a party in Scotland. You're relying on a progressive alliance

the Labour Party has rejected. In other words, you've put forward a

policy that will never be enacted on the basis of what you put in your

manifesto? You're predicated that on knowledge of the outcome of the

General Election. Do you know what it will be, Jo? No, I don't. Do you

know this will happen? Are you putting realistic policies into your

manifesto rather rather than focusing on the powers have at your

disposal to change the economy? It stands to reason a Scottish

political party will not form a majority in a Government in the UK.

If there is a possibility in Parliament to make sensible

suggestions about having fairness, an end to austerity, better

priorities, protecting the pensions, these are the things we want in the

SNP. There are people across the UK who want these things too. Depending

on the outcome of the election, if there is a possibility like-minded

voices in the rest of the UK would support a more progressive form of

politician, we'd work with them and see changes on this as well as the

likes of protecting the pension. But in Scotland, where we're standing,

that means people have a straight choice. That's what the election is

here between the SNP and Tories. It is only SNP

Parliamentarians who will stand up for these points. Tories MPs will do

whatever Theresa May says to them. You want to control your own

immigration policy. Do you have targets for net migration? The first

thing to say is our key target at the present time is not losing

people. As we already know, we are losing people back to other EU

countries. Scotland's experience is immigration is hugely beneficial. In

the first instance, we are wanting to make sure EU nationals have

guarantees they can remain. We want to make sure further nationalities

outside the EU aren't being forced to leave. That's a very regular

occurrence. We want the Scottish Government and the Scottish

Parliament to have the powers to manage immigration in Scotland so we

can guarantee the immigration levels which are right for Scotland. In the

first instance, that is not seeing it decline. The next question you

might ask is whether that's workable. It is. If it is possible

between different provinces and regions in Australia and Canada, it

should be possible to do in the UK too. There needs to be a political

willingness in Westminster to work with the Scottish Government. I

would invite the incoming UK Government to respect the wishes of

the electorate in Scotland on this and other issues and work with us to

deliver better policies. Now our Guest of the Day,

Michael Gove grew up in Aberdeen. That's a city where

the Scottish Conservatives They're also targeting the border

constituency of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk which has

the smallest SNP This constituency's most famous

former resident, the novelist Sir For years, the plot in this

constituency was pretty predictable, because it was a safe

Liberal Democrat seat. It was a real page turner

at the last election in 2015 because the SNP

won here but only be It is a gripping

battle between those who want an independent

Scotland and those who support the union

between The Tories reckon they can

hoover up the votes of people who are opposed

to independence. I wanted to show to

the voters I recognised what was at stake with Scotland's's

future in the UK. I don't want another

referendum on breaking away I feel that if the

voters return me as a member of Parliament

on the 8th of June, I would be a powerful voice

as You're not worried that

by quitting as an SNP, Like you had victory

in the bag and you are I've never felt confident

before elections. I work as hard as I possibly can

to secure every single vote. They are more likely to be

scaring our cameraman than talking about what used

to be their signature issue... What I think is really

important is in this constituency and in this election,

the focus is not independence. We haven't had a Tory

MP here for 52 years because we do not relate to their

values. That was the Tory party

of the past, never mind an You will see and I'm

sure you heard today that the Tories are trying

to frame this in a constitutional

question, forget about who we are. The Liberal Democrats say

it is about Brexit as they try not to get squeezed out

the picture altogether... We are the only party

that is pro-union. When I have been speaking

to people, especially are deeply concerned

and worried by Brexit. What will that mean

for this local community? What does it mean

for farming subsidies? This is their campaign

HQ which suggests how seriously they take

the battle for this seat. There is a polarisation,

undoubtedly, between those who are Unionists and those

who are Nationalists. However, during the length

of the campaign, we hope that we are actually going

to cut through and make people realise that this

is not just something about another

referendum but about the future of If you want to preserve the Borders

and keep them a living community, you need to get more jobs

in and better money for the people It maybe isn't as dramatic

as Ivanhoe or Rob Roy in the books he is famous for, but it

is a new chapter in politics here. Welcome to the general

election in Scotland. How far is Ruth Davidson in the Tory

brand? She detoxified the brand... Tories have not appeared in some

seats for 52 years... They talk about pandas and the number of Tory

MPs, there must have been some detox in the brand? What Ruth has done is

convincingly ensured that people have a clear choice in this general

election and in the Scottish election last time around. One party

standing unambiguously for the United kingdom, that is the Scottish

Conservatives studied art and the Labour Party? As we have from Jeremy

Corbyn himself on Sunday night is potentially open to independence. He

changed the text of his speech. He was going to say he rejected the

idea of independence. He watered it down and indicated he may talk to

the SNP and that the same time Nicola Sturgeon was playing footsie

with him, indicating she may support Corbyn. You believe the Tories will

not get a second independence referendum, even if the SNP win the

mandate for a second time at this election, she will deprive, and you

think she should, if they win in a second independence referendum? The

only way to ensure that is stopped is to vote for conservative in

Scotland. When I was campaigning in Aberdeen South with Ross Thomson and

in Murray, that everywhere I went there were people who had been

Labour and Liberal Democrat who were now supporting Scottish

Conservatives not just because Ruth Davidson was head and shoulders

above their own party leaders... She has distanced herself from Tory HQ?

She is standing up for Scotland. She is different? She is actually

surprisingly similar to to reason. They are both churchgoing

modernisers and both people with a strong reverence for the

Conservative Party's traditions and succumbed to be in the 21st-century.

The only way that you can guarantee there will not be the Scottish

National article creating the instability of a second independence

referendum and propping up a coalition in Westminster is voting

conservative in Scotland. He has ruled out any sort of deal... He

ruled out a deal before... However convenient it may be for the

Conservative Party to link Labour and the SNP, you can look at a whole

list of candidates for those constituencies in Scotland on the

BBC website. Although the big beasts of politics

were clashing over the bank holiday, there are some smaller political

animals roaming the Throughout this election we've been

searching out the smaller parties also standing for election and today

we've got the Young People's Party The Young People's Party wants

to rebalance the economy towards young people,

who they say are the most They want to replace all taxes

with a single Land Value Tax They would like to cut

all taxes on private income. They would like to roll welfare

payments into a universal Citizen's Income that everyone

was entitled to. On law and order, they would make

release from prison dependent rather than specifying a

length of time to be served. And they want to legalise drugs,

brothels and fox-hunting. We've been joined in

the studio by Thomas Hall. Welcome. You say you want to

rebalance society and will favour of what you call the productive

society, in mind younger people, why are you pitting generations against

each other? We don't want to do that at all. Old people have young

children and young children, young people, have older relatives and

friends. The real question is whether we pitched the funding of

public services from those that contribute to the economy through

their work, or those that collect the benefits of the country for free

through rents. But you want to ultimately replace all taxes with a

single land value tax. It may be very simple but it is hardly fair,

is it? We believe the land value tax is the fairest of all, and our views

are supported over the ages by great politicians like Winston Churchill,

economists like Adam Smith. And many commentators have argued the land

value tax is the least bad. Right, but it does not take any differences

or variations in population, where they live or their incomes, and what

they do? I will say it is quite the opposite. Those that occupy valuable

locations currently enjoy the value added by all of society for free.

Council taxes there but is very regressive. Could you

improve value tax? Indeed, one sensible way of ending up with

results that we are after is a revaluation of the council tax

bands. It has not been done since 1991, probably putting a cue more

bands at the top end as well. Successive governments have shied

away from doing that but basically you want to tax wealth and assets,

and not income? We do not see land as an asset in the traditional

sense. We really want to identify those assets are which are property

in the sense that someone has made them and put work into them and are

theirs, from naturally occurring gifts of nature, if you like, that

everyone contributes the value of them. We see policies from other

parties, that certain industries are in line for nationalisation and

others aren't. You ask, why one and not the other? It comes down to

rent. We understand a water company is different to a social

manufacturer, for example. The Labour Party says they are looking

at a land value tax to replace council tax and business rates, the

Conservatives call it a garden tax. Do you support that? We believe land

value tax to replace council tax and business rates is a step in the

right direction. Where our party stands apart from the Labour Party

is we propose tax would be a replacement far more than council

tax and business rates. We would raise 200 billion from a residential

land value tax. With that, we can replace council tax from stamp duty,

land tax, inheritance tax, insurance premium tax, national insurance,

employers insurance... A whole host of annoying taxes as well. Would you

back a re-evaluation of council tax and properties in this country? No.

Why not? It isn't fair if it hasn't been done since 1991? When you have

re-evaluation of any tax, then sometimes you create new winners and

new losers. And new and fairness. The thing about land value tax is it

is an interesting idea and as we have heard it has been championed in

the past by distinguished figures but always one championed by

opposition parties, like the liberals in the 1920s and 1930s. But

when in government, they have found the process of bringing about the

land value tax five righty of reasons has not been as easy as they

would have hoped. Just because it is difficult it doesn't mean it is not

right. Why is the focus on taxing income rather than assets?

In London and the south-east, your asset has probably owned you more

money than that money you and from your job? I think the best form of

taxation is taxing assets and income, and spreading taxation as

widely as possible. However elegant, I admire the party's position, but

all of your eggs in one taxation basket can be risky. Do you accept

that? No, otherwise we would not be pitching this. Ultimately, all value

is derived from the land we live on. Without it there would be no value

at all. All of those taxes we have on income or capital gain, all of

these other taxes, they are ultimately derived from value in the

country that we live in. So, we think we can simplify the tax system

from 16,000 pages to 100. All parties claim to be able to do that,

except when they get into government they make it more competent at?

Indeed. There must be a reason for that? Yes, the current economy is

based around a small number of people who benefit from the current

situation. The rapidly diminishing number of

homeowners and the young population who don't. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Now, fans of a neologism -

that's a new word to you or I - will have been pleased to hear one

being coined yesterday. and it's been used to describe

the Prime Minister. Here she is being questioned

by the Daily Mail sketchwriter I don't mean to be rude,

but you seem to be Will we see a bit more optimism,

a bit more Boris, perhaps? Because it does seem a very

subdued campaign, so far. Let's talk about this new word

with Clifford Sofield. He works for the

Oxford English Dictionary Welcome to the Daily Politics.

Glumbucket, a new word for you? It is a new word for me but it is not a

new word. It has been used before. It isn't in the dictionary. We

haven't had the chance to research it completely that this morning I

came across a few examples from newspaper columns and one of my

colleagues and examples on Twitter going back to 2012. I was really

interested to learn that in 1923, the New York Times printed an

article which described David Lloyd George as a green bucket, meaning a

pessimist. After he left Downing Street and he had a pessimistic view

of your's future prospects. -- gloombucket. And how do you write

it, with a hyphen or without? We describe how they are used, I say

that bucket words that are similar to this, like fast bucket or a lard

bucket, or a loved bucket are generally written with a hyphen, or

as a single word... I have seen glumbucket both ways. Will it make

it into the dictionary? We will wait and see, whether or not to include a

word depends on how widely it is used and how long it continues to be

used. We are monitoring glumbucket and we'll find out! Stay with us,

Michael Gove, do you think that is the correct assessment, a glumbucket

for the Prime Minister? And it is a fair assessment? No, I think of

glambucket... Clifford, what you think of that? Glambucket,

pronounced as" Lambooij K"? Tell us about other -- tell us about

other words like Philip, they are words that have evolved over time?

-- filibuster. They describe a particular thing. Whether glum

bucket will become part of parlance in future depends on whether people

continue to use it. It is up to the British people to decide! Any other

phrases which caught your eye during the election? I had to do some

interviews about mugwump, an old political coal word going back to

the early 19th century which had a lot of currency, and the late 19th

century regarding US presidential elections. IC, will you be advising

the campaign to take your new word on board? Yes, glambucket. They will

be well advised to stay away from these words! I thought you were

going to say to keep away from you! I will leave it up to the campaign

chiefs to decide what degree of proximity is appropriate! Coming up

with these new words and new phrases, I'm doing my best to add to

the lexicon... Clifford so field, I will say thank you and stick to

simple words. Thank you to Michael Gove as my

guest of the day, goodbye! I've had enough spin.

Fake news.